Posted
by
samzenpus
on Monday October 07, 2013 @02:38PM
from the people-police dept.

Nerval's Lobster writes "A subset of Oakland, California residents have decided to crowd-fund a set of private security patrols, via a trio of campaigns on a crowdfunding Website named Crowdtilt. The three patrols, if adequately funded, will cover Lower Rockridge North/West, Lower Rockridge South/West, and Lower Rockridge 'including part of the Uplands.' Each campaign has a different (Facebook verified, apparently) sponsor, and wants between $20,000 and $25,000 to make the dream of private patrols a reality. Unlike Kickstarter, the Crowdtilt campaigns don't feature fabulous prizes for contributing; gifting $100, for example, won't entitle you to 'One (1) free "accidental" shooting of your choice.' That aside, dozens of residents have contributed cash to the loosely allied projects. 'What occurred last week at the Casual Carpool has ignited our neighborhood to act,' reads one of the campaign descriptions, referring to the broad-daylight stickup of commuters waiting in a carpool line on Oakland's Hudson Street. 'While the city and the police are doing what they can, we feel it's time for us as a community to begin exploring a wide range of ideas and taking some action on our own.' All three crowdfunding pages want to hire VMA Security Group for a four-month trial period through February 2014, possibly followed by a continuing contract if everything works out. That security company already patrols the Rockridge commercial district during the holiday season, and protects a number of Oakland businesses and households. While the VMA Security Group's officers are certified to carry firearms, one of the crowdfunding pages plans to ask any of them assigned to the neighborhood to remain unarmed 'unless they feel they cannot accomplish their duties otherwise.' Upscale neighborhoods pay for private security all the time, of course. The question is whether crowdfunding — better known for financing things such as games and indie movies, at this point — could catch on as a way of funding residential projects."

If they were to convince me to donate, I'd have to know that I was indemnified against any blowback from their actions. It sound's ripe for enforcement scandal. All in all I think I'd rather contribute more to the local police and work to get them up to scratch if they are lacking in some way.

Sounds like a beautiful idea, but these poor people are being placed in a position where they are forced to pay for ineffective police (at gunpoint no less) while volunteering to pay for their own police who will be held accountable for their action AND inaction.

More so, the police have no duty to preventatively protect you from crime.

Have a restraining order against your abusive ex and see them standing outside your house? Go ahead and call the police, IF they come, chances are it won't be until after the ex has had more than an ample chance to do something and leave.

If only there were some mechanism where a large portion of the population could give some money to people to provide law enforcement services to a community before the Internet was invented.

Oh, yes, very cute. Aren't you so very clever.

The point is that it doesn't work. It never has, and in a city like Oakland it never will.

Police don't prevent crime. At best they solve easy crimes, and catch stupid criminals. After the fact. Maybe. Nationally, robbery has a 27% clearance rate (% "solved") [nypost.com]. Even that percentage is biased because most solved street robberies are those where weapons were actually used. Police don't actually have much time for robberies unless someone gets hurt. They wil

Yes, but now they are widely accepted as a necessary public good. If the present police force is not up to the task, the solution isn't for everyone to start hiring their own private guards, but rather to force the local government and police force to do better. If that means that it raises taxes on some or all, then so be it.

It used to be that most roads were toll roads, too, in some cases solely in private hands. Is the solution to poorly maintained roads for everyone to start laying their own pavem

Yes, but now they are widely accepted as a necessary public good. If the present police force is not up to the task, the solution isn't for everyone to start hiring their own private guards, but rather to force the local government and police force to do better. If that means that it raises taxes on some or all, then so be it.

And how are you going to "force them" to do better? The ballot box isn't working, in part because towns and cities have become too big. The solution most people have come up with is pr

Or, you know, the ability to contract your local police force into patrolling your neighborhood. I mean, why not? They get more revenue, you get more protection and if everything goes right, the overall level of your local police improves because they have more money for more people. But just maybe.

I can fire a security firm protecting my house. A dozen other home owners can fire the security protecting a private development. Firing the local police force and replacing it is much, much harder than either choice. That's why police forces have so many problems: they get paid pretty much no matter what.

Any truth to this, or is this just an old legend circulating among the troublemakers?

I have no idea if this is what motivated the people you heard; but the 'Posse Comitatus' and later-partial-offshoot 'Sovereign Citizen' movements have a bit of a...thing... for 'common law'(whether there version would be recognizable to a judge from a common law jurisidction is another question...) and the illegitimacy of power above very local levels. 'Posse Comitatus' was pretty specific about taking sheriffs especially seriously for some reason(presumably vaguely related to shire-level governance in Engl

While the VMA Security Group's officers are certified to carry firearms, one of the crowdfunding pages plans to ask any of them assigned to the neighborhood to remain unnamed 'unless they feel they cannot accomplish their duties otherwise.'

I always used to think the governor's name was Le Ptomaine, as in the bacterial poison. I found out this weekend that it was in reality Lepetomane, from the French "Le Pétomane" (fart maniac), which means "flatulist", "farteur", or "fartiste" according to the Wikipedia article.

This is the explicit purpose of taxes. When the majority of people say that society would benefit from everyone chipping in to a cause. What is this world coming to when people resort to a website called "Crowdtilt" as a replacement for government?

This is basically just a paid cops program. Which is not a horrible idea. Paying minimum wage to people who might otherwise be committing crimes doesn't seem like a bad idea.A private police force it is not, however.

Meh, this is a replacement for government in the same way a 'go faster stripes' paint job is a replacement for an engine. At the rates they are talking, they are unlikely to get that much coverage or people on the ground, and the police force still has to do the actual work. So what they are paying for is someone to take their panic away. And while government my pander to people's fear, it generally has to actually still do basic services with all the trade offs those entail.

Do you have even the slightest clue of how many police it would take to provide one for any random collection of 6 or more people at every car-pool waiting zone, or every bus stop? Seriously, have you spent even a minute thinking about this?

And "taxes" are always sold as "good roads, police, fire, and schools". Only about 10% of your taxes go for roads, police, fire.. and another %15 for schools.

The rest goes for stuff like "healthcare, welfare, pensions, and interest on debt." Nobody ever sells you a "tax increase for more welfare", and when folks see that 75% of the spending goes for stuff they (didn't think) they bargained for, it makes it a tough sell when politicians clamor for more taxes.

Think about it, vote down as many levies as you like for the city as a whole, doesn't matter one bit so long as you and your neighbors have armed thugs patrolling your neighborhood.

What's the difference between an armed neighborhood watchman, and an armed police officer? Beside the tin star and $30K/yr salary, anyway.

The answer, sadly, is that the armed watchman can and will be held accountable for his actions, whereas the police officer can murder your neighbor in cold blood, get two weeks paid vacation, then be found to be free from wrongdoing and back out on the streets, still armed.

Also, government police benefit from increasing crime, because they can demand more money and power. Private police benefit from decreasing crime, because otherwise they'll be dumped and replaced by another company.

What's the difference between an armed neighborhood watchman, and an armed police officer?

Well, here are some:1. The police officer has the legal authority to act on behalf of the government. In theory at least, they are carrying out the collective will of the citizens as determined by the politicians. By contrast, the armed neighborhood watchman has no more legal authority than I do.2. The police officer has the right to do things that citizens do not. For instance, a police officer can forcibly detain someone against their will if they have a reasonable suspicion that person is engaged in crim

What's the point of this? The local culture isn't going to be changed, and your going to have the same culture clash with the new police department as the old. Cops enforce the law? Residents get pissed about getting arrested. Cops don't enforce the law? Residents get pissed about crime.

This says nothing of the fact that the "new" police would have to work with the "old" police on a daily basis. This is a neighborhood where snitches are murdered and the murder is celebrated. How on earth is a new police department going to fix this?

What's the point of this? The local culture isn't going to be changed, and your going to have the same culture clash with the new police department as the old. Cops enforce the law? Residents get pissed about getting arrested. Cops don't enforce the law? Residents get pissed about crime.

For one thing, they'll presumably be enforcing the laws they're paid to enforce, and not the laws local people don't care about. So more likely to be patrolling to discourage burglars and muggers than sitting at the side of the road with a donut and a radar gun.

For one thing, they'll presumably be enforcing the laws they're paid to enforce, and not the laws local people don't care about. So more likely to be patrolling to discourage burglars and muggers than sitting at the side of the road with a donut and a radar gun.

Many people have made a similar point.

Why don't they eithera) increase the penalty for speeding, to reduce the rate of offendingb) Increase speed limits, if that's really what people wantc) Install speed cameras at high-risk locations

In America I think you have elected police chiefs, so I'd expect some of this to be easy.

As much as I don't like getting tickets, I think that enforcing traffic rules is actually a very useful service. When everyone is moving around in 3000 pound steel boxes, it's kind of a good thing if they don't just drive whichever speed they want, drive in other dangerous ways. People drive badly enough. I can't imagine how bad it would get if they stopped enforcing traffic laws. If not for fear of tickets, I'm sure people would do all sorts of stupid things when driving. It would probably be a lot lik

I'm curious what laws are in place that would result in the 'Residents' getting pissed about getting arrested. Drug laws? Or are you trying to insinuate that some not-insignificant segment of the given population is involved in muggings?

I'd be willing to bet that many, if not most, of those funding this have backed reduced taxes and the subsequent reduction of the police force.

The net effect being fewer quota filling radar gun operators and more people deterring actual crime.

How terrible.

Anyhow, I guess we've found a way to gin up some love for cops on Slashdot; cut government out of the equation. You'd think something that might offset the hoards of power-of-arrest enabled lawmen you all seem loath might be appealing around here.

Leave Oakland.
I don't care how attached I may feel to a location, the safety of my family is my number one priority.

The poverty level in some of the worst areas of East Oakland exceeds 35% - those people aren't going anywhere. Sorry, but in the real world problems like this don't have the simple solution you have put forward.

If you could afford to leave East Oakland, you very likely wouldn't be there in the first place. Accordingly, I don't see how crowd-funding private security would work. TFS mention

Leave Oakland.
I don't care how attached I may feel to a location, the safety of my family is my number one priority.

The poverty level in some of the worst areas of East Oakland exceeds 35% - those people aren't going anywhere. Sorry, but in the real world problems like this don't have the simple solution you have put forward.

If you could afford to leave East Oakland, you very likely wouldn't be there in the first place. Accordingly, I don't see how crowd-funding private security would work. TFS mentions the Rockridge neighborhood in Oakland which enjoys the lowest crime rates (and lowest poverty rate) in all of Oakland. This project, while accomplishing very little to begin with, will not provide these services to the worst areas of Oakland -- where help of some kind is needed most.

It could, potentially, free up law enforcement resources to help with the worst parts of Oakland though. That still does not address the poverty issues, however.

What you are seeing here is the birth of a government. First it's law enforcement, paid for by voluntary contributions. Then maybe some additional services - upgraded fire or rescue. Then it gets big enough that someone has to start working full time to manage it. If everyone decides (as often happens) that the people organizing this shouldn't be profiting, they all agree to take turns. Of course, this becomes cumbersome and they really find they need more continuity so the community chooses 3-4 people who will manage it, and they change those people every couple of years to each person doesn't get burned out. Then after a couple years the revenue starts flagging, and they realize that they're going to have to reimburse the organizers, and have to find a way to make sure everyone is contributing. So they form a local organization which includes everyone getting services and they agree on a way to split the costs equitably so everyone gets a bill. Most places choose the split by land area or value. Soon enough they realize that with everybody paying, they can get better garbage service, and maybe even reform the schools if everyone kicks in a little more.

And then one street decides that they aren't really getting enough service, so they take up a collection for a private security firm to supplement the (now official) police...

This Slashdot story reminded me of an awful Christian Slater movie, "Kuffs" which used the San Francisco Patrol Special Police as its plot device. As it turns out, that organization is real (couldn't Google it in 1992 when the movie came out).

If I threw a rock hard enough, I would have hit the Uplands. That neighborhood is CRAZY. Trick or treating there as a kid was a good way to work off the calories from all the candy, as you had to go up so many steps the sugar was a wash. Many of the homes there have coats of arms over the doors. They are wealthy, wealthy, wealthy. I've seen houses in my old neighborhood which is a ghetto in comparison selling for well over $1M, so these places are easily in the tens of millions.

Of course they're getting private security. The Oakland police are so busy that if you're reporting a crime that is not CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS, they'll mail you a report form. You never even see an officer if your car or house is broken into.

Meanwhile, half a mile away, on Telegraph Ave, Berkeley has about the highest concentration of mentally ill homeless people in the nation, perhaps outside of Manhattan. But heaven forbid someone gets their big screen TV stolen.

This is how policing and fire fighting started to begin with. Neighbors would band together and volunteer to patrol the streets to prevent crime. Some rural areas still use an emergency siren to summon the area's volunteer fire fighting force; first one to the station drives the truck.

At some point we decided we wanted a dedicated force so we banded together and started paying the police and fire fighters as professionals. But they were still our neighbors and friends and part of the community.

When our communities became too large for everyone to know one another and our local management organization, the government, became too large to care we ended up in the situation we have today of us and them. There are people who really believe the government "gives" us protection in the form of police officers and fire fighters. Those who believe this forget that we banded together to create those institutions to serve us and save us the trouble of having to volunteer ourselves.

Once the government became a foundational institution we just assumed that "they" had the responsibility to protect "us", we accepted that unions were formed to negotiate with "us" and we assume that we're prohibited from protecting ourselves.

The professionalization of the police and fire fighting organizations are what allowed huge parts of the population to justify their abdication of personal responsibility.

I can't argue against that professionalization because of the efficiencies it should deliver. I can, however, argue that community policing is sorely needed in many parts of this country. Any profession, unionized or not, is going to fight against competition.

We need to remind "them" that we didn't give them a monopoly on protecting us and we certainly didn't abdicate our own right of self protection and preservation.

Fire fighting actually had a less social origin. The first formal fire-fighting organisations were in London, and private businesses. They ran on the insurance model: Property owners paid a fixed due on intervals for protection, and if their property caught fire then the fire engine would be dispatched (Along with men to pump it - this was pre-engine, all hand driven) and the firemen would do their best to put the fire out.

The companies were quite unpopular because of another business approach of theirs: If a property caught fire that *wasn't* owned by a customer, they'd still drive the engine up. And then sit around idley, while the boss negotiated payment. As they had the upper hand in those negotiations, they could usually get a massive fee to put the fire out.

When I was a graduate student at University of Chicago, the University's private police force was the third largest police force in Illinois, after the cities of Chicago and Springfield. That may still be the case. The University police patrolled the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago in which the University is situated. Hyde Park is surrounded on three sides by high-crime neighborhoods, and on the east by a park along the shore of Lake Michigan, but it was safe to walk the streets of Hyde Park at all hours of the day or night. University police patrol cars could constantly be seen cruising slowly up and down every street. In those days before cell phones were popular, you could walk up any street almost without ever taking your hand off an emergency call box. When I first visited Hyde Park for my interview, I remember being told the exact boundaries of where it was safe to walk. That included things like "make sure to walk only along the south side of 47th Street, never along the north side of the street."

I'm sure now its Chicago and Aurora, A-Town has been growing pretty rapidly and is also a pretty high crime area.

The transition from Washington Park to Hyde Park is just amazing, not because poverty is awesome or anything, the transition is just so abrupt. I use to take 90/94 there when LSD was backed up and man is that depressing.

U of C is kind of this strange island of affluence and academic excellence surrounded by some of the most disenfranchised and poverty stricken areas in the state, possibly t

This is just another case of the haves who are able to "contribute" or donate to a security zone vs the public funding of police.
I'm sure all of the people who contribute are vehemently against increased "taxes", yet those taxes are the very thing that support public services like police.
They are in essence paying a selective tax (supporting private security).
Those areas too poor to hire their own private security will continue to decline.
This is no different than the rich sending their children to private schools, hiring security and personal physicians then refusing to pay any form of taxes.
As we continue down this path, the middle class will dissolve and we'll be left with children begging in the streets and the era of Dickens or a world like Mr Potter in "A wonderful life" will the reality for everyone.

Hanging around neighborhoods deterring bad guys is boring, doesn't make good numbers on the conviction rate and brings in no cash. Far better to wait at the bottom of the hill near that partially obscured speed limit sign with a radar gun.

Yet in my nice suburb the cops ride around a nice pattern all day. Crime is low, they are ready to respond at all hours and always helpful. This is why I smile when I pay my property taxes. No need for them to try to bring in more cash.

If I see police walking round this bit of London I wonder what's happened. This is a nice bit, there shouldn't be any street crime! I don't see the police in the same places, so I think they're good at patrolling everywhere rather than a fixed route.

Question: all of the regions on that map (even when zooming in) appear to be either average or above-average. What's the average calibrated against if there aren't any below-average data points? Is the rest of London really slightly-below-average enough to counterbalance the mess in the middle?

In my neighborhood, we had the cops who just sat around with radar guns all day while home invasion robberies were fairly common.
We fired the police force we were using from a neighboring city and replaced them with the county sheriff. They quit with all the traffic nonsense and immediately got to work stopping crime!
I am also very happy with the results.

Good grief. Three crowd-funded sites, each raising $25,000, would be able to hire a whopping total of **ONE** security guard, and a poorly-paid one at that. If they could go hire someone directly they could get two or three poorly-paid security guards, but by going through an agency they're guaranteeing that they won't.

Three crowd-funded sites, each raising $25,000, would be able to hire a whopping total of **ONE** security guard, and a poorly-paid one at that.

It's not $25,000 per year. This is for a four-month trial, so the $25,000 is only for 1/3 of a year's pay for each patrol. Multiplying that out, $75,000 per year would be slightly above the 90% percentile salary [salary.com] of $74,000 for a police patrol officer in Los Angeles, California. No doubt the agency will take a significant cut off the top, but that still leaves plenty to pay the guard on patrol an above-average wage.

Right, one $20/hr security guard hired though an agency will cost $60,000 - $80,000/year. If you want that guard to be armed it will cost more, in some markets a lot more. Salary+benefits+uniform+costs will mean that the agency is spending $50,000 year at least just having him around. If he's patrolling the car is going to cost as well.

I don't know about that... around here, "rent-a-cop" is truth in advertising because they hire actual police officers from the same jurisdiction. I think they have pretty much the same equipment and arrest powers as they do when they're on duty for the city.

So, what does it cost to get somebody with state power, a badge, and a crazy-strong presumption of right and innocence should anything inconvenient go to court on my side?

Rentacops are rather risible figures; but the opportunity for influence-purchasing inherent in hiring actual cops makes me a trifle nervous. You (probably) couldn't get away with having your own personal death squad or anything; but who's going to ticket the guy who hands out cushy after-hours 'security' gigs?

$50/household/3 months, with discounts for elderly or long-time residents and streets with official neighborhood watch programs.

Other than the extra patrols, I haven't gotten the impression that I'm buying any special treatment. Maybe the guy that administers the security patrol is buddy-buddy enough to get special treatment, but I'm not aware of it.

Our patrol really is just a cop working overtime and getting paid by us instead of the city (and usually using his own car with a magnetic label on it instead o

All they do is call the real police, the ones that we are already paying for with our property taxes.

It seems like a better solution would be to make the real police answerable to the will of the people. Perhaps these neighborhoods should focus on fixing their political processes rather than building a parallel police dept.

Last October my neighbor invited both our city councilwoman, and her opponent, to a neighborhood meeting at his house. About 80 people showed up. We grilled both of them on what they were going to do about recent burglaries. The result was the councilwoman was re-elected and we got a

The neighborhood beside mine has historically had a lot higher crime rate due to it being close to a major road (criminals like to be able to get in/out quickly) and as a result they have hired private security. The security guys are licensed to carry guns and do at all times. The police like it because the private guys take care of the bulk of the issues in the neighborhood and only call the police if an arrest needs to be made. The residents like it because if they need help the security guys are typic

If they are only trying to raise a few tens of thousands, I imagine wanting to do it the budget way is high on their priority list. Private police can be pretty inexpensive since much of the actual work is just offloaded onto the local police force anyway.